NEW–TAKE OUR SURVEY of lawyers, corruption and the ARDC

Please go to HERE:

Take Our Survey on Corruption Blogs and Lawyers

and answer 4 short questions that have radio buttons.

Please note if you are a lawyer and what city and state you practice in.  You can use initials if you want to remain anonymous.

The poll is restricted to one survey per computer.

Each question has a comments section and results will be updated on our TAKE A SURVEY HERE page.

tell your friends and those that support free speech rights for lawyers!

It’s just so refreshing to hear from a supporter that’s a Bar member

and tells me not to use his name because it’s “too risky.”

Love it, well I’m taking the risk for all of you out there.  Keep me in your thoughts and prayers as this case develops.

From: JoAnne M Denison []
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:24 AM
To: C — C—–
Subject: Re: corruption

Dear C_____;

OKay to publish your comments?  Withour without your name?

I have a real battle with the ARDC and you know they are on very shaky ground with my blog.

thanks so very much for your support and keep on reading my blog.  I unearth more and more stories everyday.

take care


—–Original Message—–
From: Anonymous
Sent: Feb 27, 2013 11:05 AM
Subject: corruption

Good on you Joanne.  I have practiced for 40+ years, during most of which I have been frustrated with courts who, though not patently corrupt, are at the very least guilty of benign neglect while paid fiduciaries, their minions and their representatives looted the estates of the helpless.  Until recently, in [state redacted] private fiduciaries were given a free hand until corruption was exposed in M**** [county redacted] County.  Corruption is corruption whether active or passive.  We need real reform.  Hang in there.

Signed [name and address redacted]

From Joanne;

You know its a sorry state of affairs in the “land of the free and brave” when even LAWYERS are afraid to speak out against corruption, patent or covert, begin or active–it’s all the same.  JUSTICE WAS NOT DONE.  Judges that don’t follow the laws, GAL’s that tell the court uninventoried assets are imaginary rather than conducting an investigation.  Seniors kept wrongfully from their homes in guardianships lacking jurisdiction.

Day in and day out I hear these stories, some I can publish, some I can redact, some I cannot because the families are too embarrassed, fear reprisals, whatever, they ask me not to publish their stories so I don’t.  I live with their horrors and their injustices.

Atty Ken Ditkowsky’s email to Peter Schmeidel, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 26, 2013 7:05 PM
To: JoAnne Denison , Cynthia Farenga , Peter Schmiedel , Adam Stern
Subject: FYI

We were surprised when we discovered that we have to wait until March 1 to file things electronically.     [Please note, dear readers, the SCOI issued an order but forgot to change the “efiling instructions” online.  They still read that efiling to SCOI is available starting 02-12-13 when in fact they issued a subsequent Order to delay this to March 1, 2013] This afternoon, Larry delivered the paper copies to the post office and they will be delivered tomorrow.    Yesterday, I caused to be e-mailed to Farenga, Schmiedel and Stern as interested persons a copy of the Motion and the exhibits.    We also sent each a paper copy.    The postman is going to get a hernia these things are so heavy.   We also sent copies to the ARDC attorneys and the Administrator.     If there is anything that does not arrive, Larry will be happy to e-mail copies.
That said, copies were electronically sent to law enforcement as the prime purpose of the Motion is to get the Supreme Court to force the legal profession to ‘honor’ the First Amendment as it is core of our civilization and to order an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Mary Sykes affair.    As the Supreme Court has acknowledged that jurisdiction cannot exist unless 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 is followed this situation may also be a fifty and fourteenth Amendment matter.    We have therefore forwarded a copy to the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department.
Frankly, I cannot see any justification for this facade to continue on.     Everyone knows that the 10(f) Sodini notices were never given and thus our judicial officials were appointed by a Court that lack jurisdiction.     Thus, they are not ‘judicial officials.’     For the record – that is not a threat!   It is fact and at this point in time they run but they cannot hide.   It is still not too late to do the ‘right thing!’      Mary is alive and still wants to go home and still wants to rejoin her sisters, her family, her younger daughter and he garden club.    As I told Gloria – there is no percentage in asking the ‘judicial officials’ to do what is right.   Too bad.  (I copied each of them in the hope that they would allow Mary her life back for the few moments that she has left and so that they know what I sent them and if there is a document that they did not receive all they have to do is call Mr. Chambers at my office)
Ken Ditkowsky

More flotsam and jetsam from the ARDC

Well, in the continuing vein, if you don’t have a real case, the ARDC just snail mailed me this (uuugh–snail mail, who uses it unless absolutely forced to do so?)

ARDC Motion to Strike Discovery Requests

You know, most attorneys know you have to answer Requests to Admit so they will not be automatically deemed admitted by operation of law.  You’re all supposed to do a Notice of Filing and file them in Cook County Circuit Court and then also file the Answers that way because there have been tons of argument over when they were served and when they must be returned under the seminal case of Bright v. Dicke

The ARDC should know all that.

But apparently, that is their grounds for striking Ken’s perfectly good discovery.

I have never pulled that one before and I’m not going to.  Unless opposing counsel answers them late, I’m not going to kick up a fuss. Most of the time, there’s a judge there noting the fact you are just being petty. At least that’s my experience.  Unless it’s substantive, don’t mess with it.

One of my biggest issues is not serving everything by email and asking if someone needs a paper copy (ie, a need to waste paper and trees), and if you’re going to serve discovery, at least turn over the original documents so answers can be typed directly in.

Other than that, who cares about trying to get rid of discovery. It gets you to the merits of a case quickly and it SHOULD be used.  Freely, without pettiness.

I have no idea why the Administrator is fighting discovery and does not want any.  It makes absolutely no sense to me.

And they could have asked me first if I wanted to file an appearance or strike my discovery–I would have replied I’d file an appearance for the purpose of moving along discovery, if they wanted that.

So tomorrow, we need to wast more trees, pixels and what not and get this done–even though I have actual clients to help out who are laboring under a lack of jurisdiction in Probate court.

I have real matters to attend to.  And if the ARDC thinks that by flinging paper at me, somehow these cases will suddenly attain jurisdiction because I am distracted, they have another thing come.

I work all day, late every day, late into the night.  And then I get up again the next day just to be sure some august senior of ours is not deprived of life, liberty, property, human and civil rights.

Perhaps the lovely ladies at the ARDC think this will never happen to them–they will never be the little old lady with a paid in house, paid up bank account, assets, safe deposit boxes, and along comes a greedy aspiring plenary guardian ready to jump in and engage in all the horror stories you, my readers have written me about.  The most shocking by far is operating a court without jurisdiction–no summons and complaint, affidavit of service, no Sodini 10(f) notices to all your relatives.  Only the greedy, no need to inventory relatives will get that notice.  Someday they might be in Carol Wyman’s nursing home, being sexually assaulted at night for days in a row, wanting to go home, but being shot up with Risperdol, Halodol–held down and fighting it–all against her will.  And then finally, with a severe loss of blood (down one pint and near death), she is severely beaten with a face and torso full of bruises and she manages to escape and her beloved sons–John and William drive into the night 1200 miles cross county to save her.

The ARDC ladies say I am lying.  I am not.  Everything I have said to you all is true and the proof is up on this blog.

Want the proof of the nursing home beatings upon Mrs. Carol Wyman?

Carol Wyman Beating Report

And someday when the likes of Atty Jessica Haspel, Atty Jerome Larkin, and Atty Opryszek are in a nursing home (and we KNOW how dangerous those for profit places are) and they don’t want to be there, and they are beaten and sexually abused and they want to go home, but they have no money because someone uninventoried THEIR wealth conveniently and secretly and the GAL’s pipe “it’s imagined, it’s imagined” to the court,


and don’t think you all are immune, I already know at least 3 attorneys with wealthy fathers and mothers WHOSE PARENTS WERE PUT INTO A NURSING HOME BY A STATE GUARDIAN, THE GUARDIANS ARE FEASTING OFF THE ESTATE, AND MOM AND DAD ARE BEING ISOLATED and their advance directives were they never wanted to go to a nursing home.

Don’t think because you’re an attorney, you are immune.  These attorneys did well in court, were well liked by judges, but the minute they stepped into probate their world was turned upside down.

And don’t think for a minute the attorneys at the ARDC will come running to your rescue and do your junk for free and believe in the justice of it all.  For every 10 attorneys coming through my office, 95% look the other way and don’t want to get involved in doing something for free that is difficult, complex and with the ARDC on my back, dangerous.

Very few do what Ken and I do.


From GJS – a harrowing story of one man’s final days and his death….

Of a broken heart.

Thanks for sending this along G****, I really LOVED the story.

here is the link to the full story:

Benjamin Alfano’s Harrowing Probate Story

Synopsis of facts:

Benjamin Alfano lived at Raleigh Hills Assisted Living, where he was frequently visited by his granddaughter. He died in February 2011.

Twenty-seven months ago, Probate Judge Cobb dismissed the pleas of Alfano, his four doctors, four of his five children and Cobb’s own court visitor, and awarded control of the veteran’s life to Chris Farley, a professional guardian.

Alfano, a 72-year-old amputee with full benefits, would survive only another six months.
Farley moved the veteran out of the Raleigh Hills Assisted Living facility he loved and eventually into a locked-door dementia-care unit in Gresham, and strenuously isolated him from his children.

Alfano’s heart burst, literally, in February 2011, and he died at the VA Medical Center.

As Judy Bridges, the Raleigh Hills administrator, submitted in an affidavit, “I believe with all my heart that the move killed him.”

Alfano’s death devastated his five children, four of whom retained Portland attorney Michelle Burrows to initiate a federal civil-rights suit against Farley, Pagnano and individuals at ODVA.

Of the $407,000 parked in the account when Farley was appointed guardian in 2010, only $220,000 remains.

And that includes another $44,000 that Alfano received in pension and Social Security before he died.

Where did all the money go?

ODVA “disbursed” $26,784 to Farley and another $27,643 to her attorney, Sibylle Baer.

Pagnano the GAL received $19,022.

D. Kevin Carlson, the assistant attorney general at ODVA, received $25,143.

J. Kevin Shuba — the lawyer representing Alfano’s four children — received $41,560.

But none of those payouts are as galling as Carlson’s suggestion, on behalf of Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, that Cobb must hold another $120,000 of the estate in reserve to defend ODVA and Farley against a potential federal suit.

Think about that.

Four of Ben Alfano’s children — Mary, Steven, David and Lisa –believe the conservator and guardian made decisions that contributed to their father’s “wrongful and untimely death.”

And Carlson wants to pit what’s left of their father’s estate against them.

None of those children plans to be in Guardianship court.

“She has never listened to anything we’ve said,” Steven Alfano notes.

“And we’re beaten down. Dad is dead. We lost him. And the health toll this has taken on Mary and me, especially, has been huge.”

They have, however, filed an objection.

Further degrading the estate, they argue, “would be both an injustice and simply ethically wrong in any code of conduct.”

— Steve Duin is an Oregon reporter on this story

***End of Story****

Does this sound familiar?  Haunting echoes of the Illinois Probate court?

I wonder

Copy of Petition to SCOI for a Supervisory Order

Dear Ms. Farenga, Mr.Stern, Mr. Schmiedel,
Attached hereto is the Motion of attorney JoAnne Denison that was electronically filed by Ms. Denison (via my office) with the Illinois Supreme Court.
This Motion seeks in part that the Illinois Supreme Court order an investigation of the Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation cases – such as the case of Mary Sykes in which sans jurisdiction a plenary guardian was appointed who is reported to not have inventoried a large number of gold coins and other valuables.
By the United States Postal Service  mail a copy of the document is being mailed to the ARDC as it is an interested party.
In the interests of justice and the interest of Mary Sykes and the other persons similarly affected, we invite you to join with us in requesting an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes matter and in particular, the admitted lack of the service of the 14 day notices required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.
Ken Ditkowsky

From Ken Ditkowsky, as it was in 1961

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 25, 2013 10:26 AM
To: JoAnne Denison , NASGA , probate sharks , yjd
Cc: states attorney , Cook Sheriff
Subject: Fw: Firing bad judges – NEWS: (Cook County) How clout keeps court cases secret

On November 28, 1961 I took the same oath that every lawyer in the State of Illinois is mandated to take.    A few days later I tried my first case in the Superior Court of Cook County and a couple of days later tried a case in the Circuit Court of Cook County.    In 1970 by the ‘blue ballot’ Constitutional convention the Superior Court merged with the Circuit Court.
The practice of law in 1961 -62 was quite different from what exists today.    Lawyers belonged to the same fraternity.    95% of us were friends and we had an interest in solving our client’s problems rather than churning their files and bankrupting them.    When a case came into the office, the lawyers discussed the case and determined what, if anything, could be agreed upon.  We then submitted the matters that were in issue to the Judge.   Most of the time the ‘Judge’ would cut to the heart of the issue and the matter would be further reduced in complexity.     The net result that except of very few cases trial and expense was avoided.     Oh, there were clients who would not settle for love or money, but, most of the lawyers could be said to have had an agreement to agree.    What we did not have was the ‘take no prisoners’ approach that exists today.
Yes, in 1961 were had corruption and some of it was blatant.    The perniciousness of the corruption was as bad as it is today; however, the big difference was that we did not have as many pious public officials and organizations fostering it.    When a court file was not open to the public, the lawyers, the judge, and everyone else knew that there was hanky/panky going on.     Most miscreants were not anxious to broadcast their “motion to fix.”     Most judges wanted no part in the ‘game’ and they acted accordingly.   There of course were a few who played the ‘game’ but the Chicago Daily News and the Chicago Tribune reporters made them very nervous.      A Sykes case as an example would have been addressed on day one – the guardian ad litem, assuming that they were innocent would have covered themselves with detailed reports to the Court.    As an example, Mr. Stern upon observing the extensive remodeling going on at the plenary guardian’s home would have reported this to the Judge and would have reported Ms. Gloria Sykes statement concerning that event.      The pending Motion for a Protective order filed by Mary Sykes would have disqualified the plenary guardian on day one, and 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 would have been carefully observed.
Ms. Gloria Sykes reported the disappearance of the Court file in Sykes.    It has now reappeared – so there is hope that it is in the same condition that it was prior to its disappearance!
Mr. Mayor – thank you for forwarding the article.   Chicago is not ready for reform – we cannot even obtain an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation.   The two Chicago newspapers are apparently disinterested in the fact that senior citizens are being deprived of their liberty, their property, their civil rights and human rights right now in Chicago.     Mary Sykes has suffered for more than 3.5 years!
Ken Ditkowsky

The First Amendment and Attys JoAnne Denison and Kenneth Ditkowsky

From: JoAnne M Denison <>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: The First Amendment and Attorney JoAnne Denison.

okay to publish?and many of these stories act as if these cases are MY grievances that I’m airing and they’re not. (Some of the news stories did get this wrong and said that I was petitioning for guardianship, when I was not, but many corrected that and said I only filed an appearance and then was disqualified because I notarized a document, and then a couple years later started the blog when the Sykes case drug on and was clearly without jurisdiction and then via the probate victims’ blogs I was finding a similar disturbing pattern of cases not following the Illinois Probate Act with large amounts of funds uninventoried, no jurisdiciton, etc.).
I am REPORTING these stories, I am calling for an INVESTIGATION by the authorities and by the ARDC because courts are acting without jurisdiction and the authorities are not investigating and they should.  The probate victims come to me AND you Ken and they wonder why they are not getting the basic forms of justice–due process, notice to all relatives so the court can be fully informed and appoint the best guardian, inventory of all assets and possible assets belonging to the estate.  Millions in about half a dozen cases reported directly to me are uninventoried and missing.  The family and legatees/heirs want to know why.

I am REPORTING on corruption in the Illinois courts so that it can be brought to light and eliminated.  The regular news does much of this.  Why not me?  Why not you?

Subject: The First Amendment and Attorney JoAnne Denison.

Ms. G___ S____ in an e-mail  furnished me with a list of some of the blogs that are carrying the JoAnne Denison story.    The attack unconstitutional attack on Ms. Denison’s First Amendment Rights by the Illinois ARDC is not unprecedented.   The First Amendment is often not held in high regard by government when it decides not to be transparent or decides to obviate the rights of a particular group of people.    Government with something to ‘hide’ or that is embarrassed by its own conduct is usually behind the miscreant conduct.   A review of the Mary Sykes case 09 P ____, pending in the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County  is clear in disclosing a quagmire of bad behavior by ‘judicial officials.’     In Sykes and in all of these situations, the victims are senior citizens, the disabled (with money) and their families.
It is our belief that the ARDC did not receive a mandate to suppress Attorney speech and therefore lacks jurisdiction.   The ARDC’s mandate comes from the Illinois Supreme Court and that Court is bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court.    The Alvarez, NY Times, et al decisions are clear in pointing out that ‘content’ based speech cannot be suppressed.    That is not to say that the same speech might under the right circumstances be subject to defamation suit, but government (including the ARDC) does not have standing to prevent the publication. l
In light of the history of Illinois and the 15+ judges who went to jail in the Greylord scandal and the number of Illinois high ranking political types that are in jail the ban on suppression of free speech is vital and a core basis of America.    The blogs who are reported to have carried the story are:
Ken Ditkowsky

The Stated Policy of the ARDC–DO NOT, and I repeat, DO NOT CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION!

Yep, that’s it.  After Greylord and 2 Illinois governors sitting in club fed med, the ARDC is following along party lines and is telling both myself and Ken, go ahead, do what you want but never call for an investigation!  Senior are robbed, deprived of life, liberty,  property, forced to enter the worst and most dangerous nursing homes in the nation, BUT NEVER CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION!

I don’t know about you, but that’s the lamest thing I have ever heard in my life. 

That’s what it is all boiling down to.  Apparently the ARDC is nothing but part of the official  CYA Illinois civil servant club.  They must have a lot of CYA in their computers and copiers, that’s all I’m saying.

So my 10 page complaint about censoring me and this blog, ignoring the relatives of Gore, Tyler, Bedin, Sykes, Wyman who are furious with the courts for probate abuse of their grandmas, are supposed to do just what?

In any case, Atty Ditkowsky and my ARDC cases march along.

See below:

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 22, 2013 8:06 PM
To: Tim NASGA , NASGA , GL– , Steven D Schwartz
Subject: You are invited to join with us in our petition to the Illinois Supreme Court

On Tuesday I intend to file on behalf JoAnne Denison the Motion to the Illinois Supreme Court for an HONEST, complete and comprehensive examination of the “judicial officials” who the Illinois ARDC is protecting.    In Cook County the rogues gallery is believed to have at the top of the list such illuminaries as:   Miriam Solo, Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga et al.
If you have been allegedly injured by any of the “judicial officials” you are invited to request that the Court give you leave to join with us, incorporate by reference and make part of your petition the JoAnne Denison motion so that you can request the Supreme Court of Illinois to require the Illinois ARDC to actually do its duty and protect the public from miscreants who are reported to have engaged (and are engaging) in a pattern of conduct designed and reasonably calculated to deprive senior citizens of their liberty and property.
As Gore has 1.5 million, Tyler approximately 8 million, and each of the other estates large sums of money there is a real incentive for at least the taxing authorities to be interested.    A breach of fiduciary relationship is a ‘taxable event.’   This generates ‘ordinary income.’   The failure to report the income is tax fraud.   A civil tax penalty of 50% plus interest at 5% can go a long way to provide the revenue that the president has been seeking.    In the Sykes case the United States of America should after all more than 3.5 years should have income taxes due it of at least a million dollars.    Aiding and abetting tax fraud is a criminal offense and accessories during the commission of the tax fraud bear the same responsibility as the person responsible.
I do not believe that the Supreme Court delegation to the IARDC was intended to include helping them fend off the victims, the families of victims and a few assorted attorneys (JoAnne and yours truly) who keep raising this point!    JoAnne and I both are under the impression that everyone is equal under the eyes of the law and therefore, law enforcement ought to conduct an investigation of Solo, Schmiedel, Stern, Farenga et al and determine who is correct in their assertions.   In Sykes as an example it is very clear that Farenga, and Stern were appointed by a Court that lacked jurisdiction – that is most troubling!    Mary Sykes therefore has been denied her rights and property for 3.5 years by a court that lacked jurisdiction.     If your loved senior is in a similar situation – the time is now to join with us.
Illinois does not need another Greylord or Son of Greylord.   Two governors, and a bunch of legislators in jail is enough.   If the Illinois ARDC does its job maybe we can have our judges in black robes and sitting on benches deciding disputes rather than in orange jumpsuits in prison cells.   Just a thought
Ken Ditkowsky

What is the standard of the ARDC in free speech? Or, Where is my refrigerator for my Chilled Speech?

That is what I found in Ken’s case.  It was clear the ARDC panel thought that for a lawyer, the burden was on the lawyer to prove the statements were true by clear and convincing evidence and not the other way around.

The the ARDC brought in two miscreant, nefarious lawyers (according to NASGA’s “most wanted list”) who obviously lied through their teeth and said there was “nothing wrong” with the Sykes case.  Well, Sykes is on appeal.  I doubt that the appeals court would even come close to saying the appeal was frivolous, so are we lawyers all supposed to stand by and say nothing because that’s a safe position?  The ARDC won’t slam some time wasting 10 page complaint on our desks at the whim of the lawyers involved.

Think of the unfairness to the families.  They don’t want that.  They like my blog I have heard.

I think the ARDC is dragging everything out on Ken’s case and they might be doing that on mine too because if GJS wins on appeal, (which should happen hands down if the Ill. Ct. of Appeals does its job), we will both be vindicated we were in fact telling the truth about jurisdiction and the ARDC panel had bricks for brains.  I have the Wyman case too up on appeal, and that should be another case clearly lacking jurisdiction.

I believe therefore it will be up to the LAWYERS and the PUBLIC to demand that lawyers have the right to free speech and the ARDC will just have to DEAL WITH blogging.

I maintain a lawyer cannot blog and watch every word.  Further, what words are we prohibited from using?  What words should be “chilled” in put in the refrigerator?  What words and phrases must be frozen, never used and put in my freezer until hell obtains exactly the same temperature?  What do they want us to say?  And if the warm and cozy words and phrases they will accept and can be put by the fire are outrageous lies but it makes the ARDC attys feel warm, cooey and safe, what then?  Must we say them so we have something to say?

Monitoring speech and thought is not only near impossible, it is actually impossible.  SCOTUS knows that.  It’s clearly the slippery slope, the wedge with the edge, a falling star in a black hole.

What words, what phrases, what inferences?

The ARDC has not said.  In Ken’s trial, they seemed to not like the fact he was incessantly calling out for an investigation by the authorities.  Well, probably GJS was responsible for most of that, but still they never knew who was pounding Officer Pecks with 500 emails one weekend.  Ken clearly wanted to take the credit for that one, but I’m not sure.

Again, exactly how is the ARDC using its $450 annual lawyer fees and tax dollars to investigate and control.  SCOTUS says “there must be a problem to solve” if the state wants to control speech.  And, there must be a “clear solution.”  And finally both must be subject to “strict scrutiny” (which is actually saying “fat chance.”)  I see none of that here.  Just a whole lot of vague, unsolvable territory.  Sham proceedings.  Reverse standards of what Congress and SCOTUS has promulgated.

What solution can there possibly be in putting this blog into my freezer?

I can’t make ice cubes out of it, you know!

Is my blog a problem in need of solving? The ultimate solution: censorship!

On 2-20-13, I published a post regarding a most amazing case, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants–complete with dozens of quotes as to how under the First Amendment the government has absolutely no interest in censoring or regulating content based speech and that speech covers not only my blog, but apparently it can cover the trashiest of computer and Wii-Fi games and what not, ie, Grand Theft Auto (GTA).

From Brown:
Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny—that is, unless it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. R.A.V., 505 U.S., at 395, 112 S.Ct. 2538. The State must specifically identify an “actual problem” in need of solving, Playboy, 529 U.S., at 822–823, 120 S.Ct. 1878, and the curtailment of free speech must be actually necessary to the solution, see R.A.V., supra, at 395, 112 S.Ct. 2538. That is a demanding standard. “It is rare that a regulation restricting speech because of its content will ever be permissible.” Playboy, supra, at 818, 120 S.Ct. 1878. *** end of quote.

So is the ARDC saying that my blog is a “problem in need of solving?”

Now, as any parent knows, GTA and perhaps Postal has got to be about the trashiest, most obnoxious, detestable, despicable digital media games out there.

The US Supremes says this is “content based speech” and the government cannot regulate its dissemination to even children.

You know, this is the game where you get to rob whatever–a bank, a 7-11, a gas station, kill the clerk, pay for a hooker in an alley, beat her up or kill her, and you get points!  That’s right, points for evil deeds.  You can even get points for killing a cop during your robbery. (I wonder if they have demerits for feeding the poor, or donating clothes).

I digress.  The game is a parental nightmare and a horror show.

So my question is, why is the ARDC going after my blog and saying I cannot speak out against corruption, I am lying about it (despite the fact the court records are published here, the evidence is published here and the blog is complete in and of itself)–when the US Supremes have said you have to leave even the worst and most despicable of trashy video games alone–it’s protected speech?

Can ANYONE answer that one?

What if a lawyer wrote that game or portions of it?  Would the Illinois ARDC go after that lawyer?

What if my blog were put into book form and sent to the ARDC, could they draft up a complaint against a book?  Can they ban a book or discipline a lawyer in the US for writing a book about corruption in the courts?

Are we fast approaching the decline of our democratic, open and free speech civilization where the ARDC will start rounding up and banning books?  Will they have the Illinois sheriff do it?

Inquiring minds want to know.

In Germany in the 1930’s the Gestapo took away all the weapons from the Jews.  A Jew was shot on sight, frisked in the street and shot if he had any weapon–gun or knife.  When that was done, the Gestapo then went and rounded up Jewish lawyers in the courts and banned them from practicing law.

The slippery slope, the wedge with the edge.
While the US Supreme Court has clearly spoke, apparently not all lawyer have heard–apparently the lawyers at the ARDC have not heard.

A 2011 decision. The latest. Confirming over 100 years of free speech case law that I get to say what I want unless someone can prove it is blatantly false or made up–and even then, as long as it is clear it is satire or my imagination, I don’t think they can regulate that either.

What if Lewis Carroll were a lawyer?  Could he have written Alice in Wonderland, clearly making fun of royalty as pompous asses?

I still have a lot of questions that no one has answered.

Is the next step book burning?


Just so you know, Attys Jerome Larkin, Haspel and Opryczek, you are free to posts your comments here.  I won’t ban them and you can link anywhere you please.

I WILL FREELY GIVE YOU FREE SPEECH, why do you not afford me the same courtesy?

And between the ARDC and myself, who IS the most transparent and appears the least corrupt?

It’s interesting to note that the ARDC has charged me with lying on this blog.  Not only have most of the other major blogs come to my defense in this matter and have offered to testify on my behalf, but one thing really sticks out in all of this, and that is TRANSPARENCY.

The ARDC posts a complaint utilizing my copyrighted materials, and I expect to receive the copyright registration soon, then Ken Ditkowsky files a Motion to Dismss the complaint, the ARDC responds with a Motion to Stricke his MTD,  KDD files leave for interrogatories, the ARDC files a Motion to Disqualify Ken, he files an answer–all of that is on my blog.

During the “hearing” today on the Motion to disQ one thing struck me about all this.  While the ARDC claims they will call KDD to testify as a witness regarding the blog, he responded with it’s not his blog, he does not control it, nor does he publish anything there.  I make the requests to publish to him.

But the blog, I told the ARDC and the hearing panel, is complete in and of itself.  Documents published there include everything needed to show from the courts own records that the cases I publish about–Gore, Bedin, Tyler, Sykes, Wyman, etc. all appointed a guardian without jurisdiction. The motions, affidavits and all relevant documents are published on this blog so I have transparency when I say something.

Ken is not needed for that.

Further, what does the ARDC publish for transparency.  Are they engaging in “fair reporting”, providing all the facts.

For example, they say I am lying about jurisdiction, service upon Mary, service upon Yolanda and Josephine BUT THEY HAVE PUBLISHED NO DOCUMENTS ON THEIR WEBSITE TO BACK THAT UP.

I challenge them to do so.  I find it highly offensive they publish something about me and I cannot comment, I cannot respond, I cannot reply, they do not publish any proof whatsoever of their claims, and then they go whining to the hearing panel that I am lying and my counsel must be disqualified.

Disgraceful.  There are no words….

I am TRANSPARENT, they are not.  I do not make conclusory statements, but I investigate and back it up with facts–declarations, conversations, anything.

The ARDC just runs to the hearing board to get my atty disqualified.


That’s all they got.  No blog, no proof, nothing.

The ARDC must really be afraid of this blog and want it censored

because increduously, they just disqualified Atty Ken Ditkowsky as my attorney!

The first thing you do, when you really have no case is get rid of opposing counsel on a bogus motion to disqualify. That is what happened here.  The ARDC says “there might be a conflict”–no there is not–we are on the same side, reporting on misconduct and lack of jurisdiction in the Mary G Sykes case.  The ARDC says it wants to use him as a witness regarding the blog, but in reality, I run the blog, the blog is mine, and there is nothing to question him about.  The documents speak for themselves. The blog speaks for itself.  I have heard no adverse comments to this blog, only laudatory, confirming comments that there IS a problem with jurisdiction in the Mary G Sykes case, that justice must be done there  and in other cases lacking jurisdiction–Taylor, Gore, Drabik, Bedin, Spera, Wyman.  There are others I cannot mention because I have been asked not to mention them, the victims are soooo afraid of probate court and their GAL’s.

I don’t understand all of this.  Ken Ditkowsky has come up with wonderful, wonderful cases to send to Attys Larkin, Haspel and Opryczek–all ignored.  The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) makes it clear whatever you put on the internet–you have no liability, except for copyright infringement–and I have done none of that.  My posts are my own, I always ask to publish.  The ARDC has no complaint about that.

My blog is like a book.  I have never heard of a lawyer disciplined for writing a book–the content of a book is clearly first amendment protected.

So why then, are they rubber stamping all of the ARDC’s motions and denying me my choice of counsel.  I have a 6th and 14th amendment right to the counsel of my choice.  All the ARDC attorneys did was cite a bunch of criminal law cases about co-defendants.  It was crazy. They can’t question KDD because he has no first hand knowledge of blogs or blogging.  He doesn’t run my blog, I do.

Time to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.  I need the findings of fact and conclusions of law ASAP.

If we have to, we need to take it to US Supreme Court.

I don’t understand why I can’t freely write about corruption and blog.

The concept that KDD “might” be a “witness” is bogus.  Further, the concept that I cannot have him for my counsel up until trial is further bogus and just use another attorney then is bogus.  I asked for that and they turned down my request.  I have seen courts do that one over and over, just bring in another atty for quesitoning your own atty, which as we know, questioning an atty is generally a waste of time.

AS and CF said there was jurisdiction at the ARDC hearing–despite the fact that Yolanda and Josepine both have exeucted affidavits they were never served with the 14 day prior notice of time, date and place of hearing.  The hearing panel today wasn’t concerned one bit that the ARDC was promulgating that big hairy lie.  They didn’t want to hear it.  A probate court without jurisdiction for 3 years.

Can someone please explain all of this to me?



What has happened to our little boy? Did he grow up or just get older?

In the search to find out just whom is prosecuting/persecuting me for speaking out about corruption in Illinois courts, I ran across this:

Jerome (Jerry) E. Larkin, Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, ex officio, is Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC), responsible since his appointment to that position in March 2007, for administering the agency which registers Illinois lawyers and investigates and prosecutes allegations of ethical violations.  Mr. Larkin is a graduate of Niles College of Loyola University and the Loyola University School of Law.  After he was licensed to practice law in 1978, he joined the ARDC as staff counsel.  He investigated, litigated and appealed countless attorney disciplinary cases.  He later served as Senior Counsel, Chief Counsel, Assistant Administrator, and then Deputy Administrator from 1988 until his appointment as Administrator.

He is a past President of the National Organization of Bar Counsel (NOBC), the bar association of lawyer regulators.  In 2003, he received the ARDC’s 25-year leadership and service award.  In 2006, he won the NOBC President’s Award for lifetime achievement in the field of lawyer regulation.  In 2009, he was a recipient of an ABA CoLAP Meritorious Service Award.  He was also given the Robert Bellarmine award for distinguished service to the Loyola Law Alumni Association in 1992.  Mr. Larkin is the fourth Administrator of the ARDC.  He follows the late Carl H. Rolewick (1973-1988), John C. O’Malley (1988-1992) and Mary Robinson (1992-2007).

You will note it says nothing in his bio about knowing about First Amendment or Free Speech rights, nor does it say he ever protected any of those.

Just how does it happen that Atty Jerome Larkin, the recipient of an ARDC award, a Loyola Law Award, an ABA award (I’ll skip NOBC, never heard of them)  is somehow demoted to the position of reading atty blogs on corruption and drumming up some sort of ridiculous notion of regulating our speech and thought patterns?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Check out his full bio with a picture at:

And can somebody please ask for those awards back for being an idiot about the US Constitution and bill of rights?

Really.  Who would have thought.

I’m very glad I speak out about corruption and represent people with no money and have no money myself rather than go to fancy expensive dinners and get fancy awards.

Save the money on your fancy awards, and take the money from the plaques, trophies, whatever, turn it into dollars and give it to the homeless on the streets.  At least they give you a blessing.

Who gets better First Amendment Speech protection–Children, trash video games or lawyers and the ARDC?

And exactly what most recently has the US Supreme Court said about the First Amendment.

Inquiring minds want to know.  Is the ARDC right?  Has the First Amendment been removed from the US Constitution with the passage of the Patriot Act, HIPPA, Obama Health Care, etc.?

Guess not Virginia, please read on:

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants:
No. 08–1448. | Argued Nov. 2, 2010. | Decided June 27, 2011.
Background: Associations of companies that create, publish, distribute, sell and/or rent video games brought declaratory judgment against state under the First and Fourteenth Amendments seeking to invalidate newly-enacted law imposing restrictions and labeling requirements on the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Ronald M. Whyte, J., 2007 WL 2261546, granted associations’ motion for summary judgment, permanently enjoining enforcement of the law. State appealed.

Holdings: The Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, held that:
[1] video games qualify for First Amendment protection;
[2] while there are limited exceptions to prohibition against content-based governmental restrictions on expression, for obscenity, incitement and fighting words, new categories of unprotected speech may not be added; and
[3] California failed to satisfy burden of showing either that the law was justified by compelling government interest, or that law, which was both over-and underinclusive, was narrowly drawn to serve that interest.

[Looky here–video games are protected by the First Amendment–but NOT the blogs of lawyers?  Hmm. Interesting]

While the Free Speech Clause exists principally to protect discourse on public matters, it is difficult to distinguish politics from entertainment, and dangerous to try.

Under the Constitution, aesthetic and moral judgments about art and literature are for individual to make, not for government to decree, even with mandate or approval of majority.

Whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, basic principles of freedom of speech and press, like the First Amendment’s command, do not vary when new and different medium for communication appears.

As general matter, government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content

[And when the government does, we will have truly arrived at a police state no better than Burma (Mayanmar)]

While there are limited exceptions to prohibition against content-based governmental restrictions on expression, for obscenity, incitement and fighting words, new categories of unprotected speech may not be added to the list by legislature which concludes that certain speech is too harmful to be tolerated

Without persuasive evidence that novel restriction on content is part of long, if heretofore unrecognized, tradition of proscription, legislature may not revise judgment of the American people, embodied in First Amendment, that the benefits of the Amendment’s restrictions on government outweigh the costs

Minors are entitled to significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected materials to them.

[Great–even children get better protections under the First Amendment than lawyers?  Get out my toddler dress!  I have dolls in my office, really, does that count?]

[oh oh, I think this was written for the ARDC]

Disgust is not valid basis for restricting expression.

California law prohibiting the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors, as restriction upon content of protected speech, was invalid under the First Amendment unless California could demonstrate that it passed strict scrutiny, i.e., that the law was justified by compelling government interest and was narrowly drawn to serve that interest; state had to specifically identify an actual problem in need of solving, and the curtailment of free speech had to be actually necessary to the solution.

[my comment: does that mean that the ARDC must first come up with an actual problem in need of solving with my speech before it can prohibit it?  Exactly what would that problem be?  I am annoying?  Irreverent?  I can’t say I’m shocking compared with Dishnetwork or Cable TV–that’s a whole other level, I’m sure]

It is rare that a regulation restricting speech because of its content will ever be permissible under the First Amendment.

[Has the ARDC reallio trulio found that elusive rare occurrence to control the content of my speech?]

On First Amendment challenge to California law that restricted speech based on its content, by prohibiting the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors, California failed to satisfy burden of showing either that the law  was justified by compelling government interest, given lack of evidence of any direct causal relationship, as opposed to correlation, between exposure to violent video games and violence by minors, or that law, which was both over-and underinclusive, was narrowly drawn to serve that interest.

[I’m still trying to figure out what, if anything, the ARDC can control or what problem might be solved by controlling the content of my speech on a blog that is regarding corruption in the Illinois courts?  It has been made very elusive to me.  Further, exactly what did attorney Ken Ditkowsky do by deserving a “misconduct” finding by the ARDC hearing panel when all he did was engage primarily in first amendment protected speech?  Did he betray a client confidence?  Did he steal money?  Did he forget to go to court?  Write a brief or pleading for a client?  WHAT DID HE DO?  Oh, that’s right, he wrote a letter trying to investigate a PROBATE CASE that appeared to be corrupt.  Then, he talked about corruption on MY BLOG.  Seems protected to me, according to this case.
What right does the ARDC have to discipline either myself or him for any of that?
I am disgusted by all of this.]  

The most basic principle—that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771—is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test.

[Why does not the ARDC understand “the most basic principle” of content based speech.  Inquiring minds want to know.]

Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny, i.e., it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest.

***** end of case quotes.****

This case then launches into a very long and detailed history of obscenity, regulating the content of speech and ends with the proposition that the state has almost no interest in regulating speech.  I am sure you can google the case to see the entire case on the internet.

It’s a great case–full of great quotes, and thank you Attorney Ditkowsky for bringing this to my attention.

I never thought I would have to read all of these first amendment cases to protect myself, and more particularly, to protect myself from the likes of the ARDC.

I think it’s pretty scary that ARDC attys Jerome Larkin (the “administrator”), Sharon Opryszek and Jessica Haspel file such trash when they should know that my speech is protected.

Unless they support the proposition that children have better first amendment rights that lawyers.

That is the proposition they are supporting, correct?

In any case, I have a “pretrial” conference with the ARDC tomorrow.

I will let you know how it goes.

I am a lawyer blogger and I TELL THE TRUTH.  For too long, the courts, the ARDC and your (crazy) lawyer have operated in secrecy.  Those days are over.

I struggle every day.  I try to help clients that are poor in horrible situations.  I try to do it and not beg for money.  But it seems every day now is a day I beg for money.  For clients to pay a small portion of their bill.

It’s hard, it’s tiring.  I have no idea what happens tomorrow.

I am dedicated to telling you all the truth.

I am dedicated to helping those in legal need and I try not to turn people away.

I have not totally figured out how to do this every day, but what there is that holds me up is faith.

So my question today to you all is, SCOTUS has decided that children have a ton of first Amendment rights to play video games–you know the ones advertised on the side of buses in Chicago that allow you to gain points (stolen money), hold up a 7 – 11, then go to the alley, rape and beat up a hooker (come on, you KNOW the name of this game), shoot cops and kill them for more points, but lawyers can’t run a blog speaking out against corruption in the state courts of Illinois?

Can someone PLEASE explain this to me?

And Ken, if you have no idea what game I am referring to, I will explain it to you someday when you are old enough.

Funding to Help Lawyers fight Corruption in the Courts–go to the big guns!

While the internet continues to burn with dozens–if not hundreds– of websites dedicated full to fighting corruption and the probate blogs report daily on all sorts of nefarious activities by judges and attorneys acting badly, and I am completely stressed out and worn out fighting this from both fronts–the ARDC and those who want relief from me and assistance because they were clearly, patently and obviously burned in probate court, someone has a great idea–get some funding.  Get me and the other lawyers fighting this some assistance.

I have to pay bills and rent, I have to pay my associates, I run so low so many months, I wonder how I can do it, but I keep on plugging along.  Why?  Because I think the courts should be fair and just.  I think seniors and the disabled should be protected and I think the internet should be free and everyone can speak out.  That’s why.

Please help support this effort and see if you can’t get us do-gooder attorneys the help we need.

Read on below.

Thank you for the information.
The corruption issue in Illinois has risen to extreme levels in reference to court sanctioned elder abuse/financial exploitation of the elderly.      The blatant attempt to silence attorneys so that they do not complain about the illegal deprivation of senior citizen’s liberty and property rights is disingenuous and per se corrupt.     How can any intelligent person justify the facts that are disclosed in the Sykes case and the attornment thereto of Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel and the judges who rubber stamped the orders presented by the three.    The conduct reported to have been demonstrated by Miriam Solo is so outrageous that ****.
How does this occur in the United States of America.
Ken Ditkowsky

From:  (email addresses redacted)
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 12:14 PM
Subject: Shelton – partial action plan


Please feel free to forward this to anyone not on above email list that I missed or you think it should go to.
I sent the following letter the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation asking them to fund investigations of and exposure of corruption in the court system.
You all may want to start writing such letters.  I have included a list of the foundations with the most funds that you may want to write and all sorts of civil rights organizations that I have not finished investigating.
I am also writing law school Deans, law school  professors with specific expertise and I am trying to find the address to law school student organization presidents to write them to see if we can make presentations at their schools and ask for their assistance in our activism and to inform them of the issues.
I don’t think anything will change until the justice department is under pressure from class action suits asking for prospective injunctions to correct constitutional and statutory violations. This won’t happen until foundations, the press, pro bono sections of huge well-known law firms and legislators, are flooded with letters from the public asking them to act and publicize these problems. This won’t happen until we have a grass roots base of students and activists helping us put on this pressure.
Anyone who wishes to help me produce a master list of the above contacts please contact me.
Linda Shelton
Linda Lorincz Shelton, Ph.D., M.D.
9905 S. Kilbourn Ave.
Oak Lawn, IL 60453-3539  U.S.A.
Home phone/fax (call first) 708 952-9040
Cell phone 708 952-0040
                                                                                                            February 16, 2013
Board of Directors
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
500 Fifth Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98109
Dear Board of Directors:
I am writing to suggest that you consider a very important new area of philanthropy that has been sorely neglected.  I am also asking for your help in disseminating this information to other foundations who might be interested in these issues. I am a disabled individual, with no talent in business, financial issues, or advertising who has provided pro bono assistance to others despite my inability to assure my needs as I age. I am hoping that some group of philanthropists will consider the following and I will see the fruits of their efforts before I die.
As a physician, civil rights activists, paralegal, and victim of government corruption, I believe I have some insight in the areas that I would appreciate your considering for philanthropic endeavors. I have assisted people in family courts, probate courts, criminal courts, and civil rights courts. In the U.S., we have 5% of the world’s population but 25% of the world’s prisoners. We have become an incarceration nation and this is negatively affecting our productivity and economy, our children and their future, as well as our morality and priorities.  When non-violent persons who have made minor mistakes, are innocent, or have made poor choices are penalized with excessive pretrial detention, wrongful or rightful excessive sentences, outrageous post-conviction and post-incarceration social penalties, our whole society suffers. I believe our prison/jail/industrial complex has a much larger negative effect on our economy and social fabric than people realize.
Presently in the U.S., prosecutors have 10 times the budget that defense attorneys receive.  Pro bono services provide less than 20% of the need for legal services for the poor, according to the Legal Service Corporation, headed by John Levi, son of Attorney General Levi, under President Ford.            This leads to the majority of persons charged with misdemeanors to plea bargain under pressure even if innocent and at least 7 % of defendants are known to be innocent. It leads to huge numbers of wrongful incarcerations, large need for social services for families that are broken up by excessive or wrongful incarceration, failure to provide rehabilitation, children losing their parents, resolving door incarceration, increase in crime, and general moral degradation of our society.
The legal system should be a foundation for society, encouraging mediation, encouraging charity and moral human relationships, paving a way for cooperation and community involvement, and providing a path for self-redemption and then useful contributions to society by a higher proportion of our society. However, presently American Justice is a MYTH!
Please speak with John Levi of the Legal Service Corporation and you will find that the situation is deteriorating and is a crisis in America.  If we cannot be leaders in terms of justice in the world, then how can we lead the way in developing countries and in the Arab Spring for others to develop their legal systems to benefit society?  China and many expanding and developing countries have very poor legal systems and need to be able to look at our legal system as a shining example to emulate.
I would very much like to talk to you about all this, especially about how our family courts are through felony funding fraud misusing billions of dollars of government funds to line the pockets of corrupt officials, divert family funds to court-appointed attorneys and counselors or evaluators, and actually steal children’s’ college funds and elderly estates causing the elderly, who have funds, to be placed in very poor nursing home facilities while non-relative court-appointed guardians steal their estates through unnecessary fees, and teaching children that families don’t matter and that they should feel entitled.
Please help be a leader in this area.  I am available with a group of others I am networking with to speak to you about these matters and share some of the information we have found through diligent use of 100s of FOIA requests and pro bono investigations, paralegal work, and empathy with the many who are suffering from this Myth of American Justice.
I thank you for consideration of my letter. I am asking that you consider ways to:
1)      increase the parity between defense attorneys and prosecutors, as well as increase access to our courts for the poor and for all those who wish to exercise their right to remedy under the First Amendment,
2)      require judges and lawyers to have greater education similar to doctors who must be certified in specialties after completing residencies,
3)      to increase training requirements for officers and prison/jail guards and probation/parole officers,
4)      to reduce excessive sentencing and promote restorative justice,
5)      to take the profit motive out of the prison/industrial complex and convert it to a professional organization,
6)      to root out corruption in the courts among judges and lawyers as well as develop more non-lawyer oversight in our legal system,
7)      to educate the public about our prison/industrial complex and its negative effect on our economy and morality,
8)      to take the profiteering out of the family and probate court system and make sure decisions on custody and guardianship are made not based on hearsay, but based on facts obtained in due process hearings, and
9)      to promote a high level government review of our justice system and reforms to make it transparent, fair, and family oriented.
                                                                        Most Sincerely and Prayerfully,
                                                                        Linda Lorincz Shelton, PhD, MD
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
8 Bridge Street, Suite A, Northampton, MA 01060
Telephone: 413-582-0110
Fax: 413-582-0116
Civil Rights Organizations
Links to advocacy and civil rights organizations.
The Alliance for Justice is a national association of environmental, civil rights, mental health, women’s, children’s and consumer advocacy organizations.
ADC, the national association of Arab Americans, is a grassroots civil rights organization that works in every sphere of public life to promote and defend the rights of the Arab American community.
The Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights is committed to the revitalization of a progressive civil rights agenda at the national level. Its work is grounded in the belief that such an agenda benefits the entire country, not just particular interest groups.
CAIR is dedicated to presenting an Islamic perspective on issues of importance to the American public. In offering that perspective, we seek to empower the Muslim community in America through political and social activism.
Its mission is to strengthen and expand the provision of civil legal assistance to low-income people through the collaborative efforts of a community of advocates that includes legal services programs, the private bar, social service and community organizations, law schools, courts, advocacy groups at the state and national levels, and poor people as advocates for themselves.
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, was formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination. The Committee’s major objective is to use the skills and resources of the bar to obtain equal opportunity for minorities by addressing factors that contribute to racial justice and economic opportunity. Given our nation’s history of racial discrimination, de jure segregation, and the de facto inequities that persist, the Lawyers’ Committee’s primary focus is to represent the interest of African Americans in particular, other racial and ethnic minorities, and other victims of discrimination, where doing so can help to secure justice for all racial and ethnic minorities.’s mission is to empower the civil rights community to lead the fight for equality and social justice in the emerging digital society through the establishment of an online social justice network. leverages communications technologies to create an online society committed to the continued pursuit of equality and fostering greater understanding and mutual respect for difference.
MALDEF’s mission is to foster sound public policies, laws and programs to safeguard the civil rights of the 35 million Latinos living in the United States and to empower the Latino community to fully participate in our society.
The primary focus of the NAACP continues to be the protection and enhancement of the civil rights of African Americans and other minorities. Membership, the lifeblood of the Association, is open to anyone believing in the basic tenets of the NAACP.
For more than half a century, LDF has used the law as a powerful tool to pry open doors of opportunity long closed to African Americans, other people of color, women, and the poor.
The National Action Network (NAN), founded in 1991 by Rev. Al Sharpton, is a civil rights organization whose mission is to be the voice of empowerment for the disenfranchised throughout America. NAN offers a committed national advocacy network of activists, volunteers and religious leaders guided by the non-violent civil protest doctrines of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that speak against racism, bigotry and bias.
NAPALC works to advance the legal and civil rights of Asian Pacific Americans through litigation, public education and public policy.
NAPAS, the voluntary national membership association of protection and advocacy systems and client assistance programs, assumes leadership in promoting and strengthening the role and performance of its members in providing quality legally based advocacy services.
The National Civic League (NCL) is a 107-year-old non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to strengthening citizen democracy by transforming democratic institutions.
The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan, tax-exempt organization established in 1968 to reduce poverty and discrimination, and improve life opportunities for Hispanic Americans.
The National Women’s Law Center has worked since its inception in 1972 to protect and advance the progress of women and girls at work, in school, and in virtually every aspect of their lives. The Center brings to its work extensive subject expertise in the major areas of family economic security, health, employment and education. The Center uses a variety of tools to maximize its impact in bringing women’s concerns to public policy makers, advocates and the public, including public policy research, monitoring and analysis; litigation, advocacy and coalition-building; and public education.
The Native American Rights Fund mission is the preservation of tribal existence, the protection of tribal natural resources, the promotion of human rights, the accountability of governments, the development of Indian law and educating the public about Indian rights, laws, and issues.
The National Rainbow/PUSH Coalition (RPC) is a multiracial, multi-issue, international membership organization founded by Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. We’re working to move the nation and the world toward social, racial and economic justice. From our national headquarters in Chicago and a bureau in Washington, D.C., we’re uniting people of diverse ethnic, religious, economic and political backgrounds to make America’s promise of “liberty and justice for all” a reality.
The Urban Institute is a non-profit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization established to examine the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation.
Rank Organization Country Headquarters Endowment ($USD) Endowment
(native currency)
Founded References
1 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation United States Seattle, Washington $37.4 billion 1994 [1]
2 Stichting INGKA Foundation Netherlands Leiden, Netherlands $36.0 billion 1982 [2]
3 Wellcome Trust United Kingdom London $22.1 billion £14.2 billion (GBP) 1936 [3]
4 Howard Hughes Medical Institute United States Chevy Chase, Maryland $16.1 billion 1953 [4]
5 Ford Foundation United States New York City, New York $10.3 billion 1936 [1]
6 Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation United Arab Emirates Dubai $10.0 billion $36.7 billion (AED) 2007 [5]
7 J. Paul Getty Trust United States Los Angeles, California $9.6 billion 1982 [1]
8 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation United States Princeton, New Jersey $9.2 billion 1972 [1]
9 Li Ka Shing Foundation Hong Kong Hong Kong $8.3 billion $64.4 billion (HKD) 1980 [6]
10 The Church Commissioners for England United Kingdom London $8.1 billion £5.2 billion (GBP) 1948 [7]
11 W.K. Kellogg Foundation United States Battle Creek, Michigan $7.7 billion 1930 [1]
12 William and Flora Hewlett Foundation United States Menlo Park, California $7.4 billion 1967 [1]
13 Kamehameha Schools United States Honolulu, Hawaii $7.3 billion 1887 [1]
14 Robert Bosch Foundation Germany Stuttgart $6.9 billion €4.5 billion (EUR) 1964 [8]
15 Garfield Weston Foundation United Kingdom London $6.5 billion £4.2 billion (GBP) 1958 [9]
16 David and Lucile Packard Foundation United States Los Altos, California $6.1 billion 1964 [1]
17 John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation United States Chicago, Illinois $5.7 billion 1975 [1]
18 The Pew Charitable Trusts United States Philadelphia, Pennsylvania $5.594 billion 1948 [10]
19 Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation United States Palo Alto, California $5.585 billion 2000 [1]
20 Andrew W. Mellon Foundation United States New York City, New York $5.5 billion 1969 [1]
21 Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation Sweden Stockholm $5.3 billion kr 32.7 billion (SEK) 1917 [11]
22 Lilly Endowment United States Indianapolis, Indiana $5.2 billion 1937 [1]
23 The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust United States New York City, New York $4.1 billion 1999 [1]
24 Tulsa Community Foundation United States Tulsa, Oklahoma $4.0 billion 1998 [1]
25 The California Endowment United States Los Angeles $3.7 billion 1996 [1]
26 Rockefeller Foundation United States New York City, New York $3.6 billion 1913 [1]
27 Realdania Denmark Copenhagen $3.5 billion €2.8 billion (EUR) 2000 [12]
27 Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation Portugal Lisbon $3.5 billion €2.8 billion (EUR) 1956 [13]
29 The Kresge Foundation
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its Equal Protection Clause provides Equal justice under law. Beginning in the late 1800s and throughout the early years of the 20th century, the American legal profession expressed its commitment to the concept of free legal assistance for poor people in the form of legal aid societies and bar association legal aid committees.
The first legal aid society, The German Society of New York, was founded in 1876 to protect German immigrants from exploitation. Subsequently, the agency’s protection was extended to others and in 1890 it became the Legal Aid Society of New York.[4] In 1888, the Ethical Culture Society of Chicago established by the Bureau of Justice was the first agency to offer legal assistance to individuals regardless of nationality, race or gender. Other municipalities followed suit, and in the first decades of the 20th century most major cities had opened legal aid societies.[5]
In 1911, legal aid societies joined together to form the National Alliance of Legal Aid Societies. Arthur von Briesen of the Legal Aid Society of New York was the first president of the organization that became the National Legal Aid & Defender Association (NLADA) in 1949.[6]
The concept of free legal assistance for the poor was promoted by the publication of Reginald Heber Smith’s Justice and the Poor in 1919. Smith challenged the legal profession to consider it an obligation to see that access to justice was available to all, without regard to ability to pay. “Without equal access to the law,” he wrote, “the system not only robs the poor of their only protection, but places in the hands of their oppressors the most powerful and ruthless weapon ever invented.[7]
As a result of Smith’s book, the American Bar Association created the Special Committee on Legal Aid Work. By the middle of the 20th century, virtually every major metropolitan area had some kind of legal aid program. However, the system established was not suffice in meeting the needs of the poor and in the early 1960s a new model for legal services programs emerged. This new model was based on the philosophy that legal services should be a component of an overall anti-poverty effort. The Ford Foundation was one of the original supporters of this model.
Subsequently, in 1964 came the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act, which launched the war on poverty and mandated federal funds to be allocated for the first time to fund legal services to the poor. However, this law did not specifically provide for legal services and it took many years and attempts to finally devise a federal construct to support legal aid for the low-income community. After years of research and advocacy, the Legal Services Corporation Act was enacted in 1974 by President Richard Nixon. This program flourished and has evolved over the years to become the organization nationally recognized as the Legal Services Corporation.
Over the years legal aid has evolved into a comprehensive program that provides legal assistance to low-income people regardless of race, ethnicity or gender. NLADA is the only national membership organization devoted exclusively to ensuring legal representation for individuals who cannot afford an attorney.
NLADA serves the equal justice community in two major ways: providing products and services and as a national voice in public policy and legislative debates on the many issues affecting the equal justice community. NLADA also serves as a resource for those seeking more information on equal justice in the United States.

[edit] Civil legal aid

  • Civil legal aid refers to the free legal services provided by thousands of attorneys who work through local legal aid offices to help millions of low-income people gain access to justice.
  • Civil legal aid helps low-income people resolve urgent, non-criminal legal problems that make a difference in their everyday lives, such as protecting the elderly from unlawful evictions, making sure women and children are protected from violence in their homes, and helping veterans receive the financial benefits they have earned and need.

[edit] Funding of civil legal aid

  • Civil legal aid programs are state-based or community-based organizations funded in a variety of ways. Some receive grants from the United States Congress each year through the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). The LSC is a private, nonprofit organization established by Congress to ensure equal access to justice under the law by providing legal assistance in civil (non-criminal) matters to low-income individuals.
  • Most federally funded civil legal aid programs also receive support from other sources, including individual donors, foundations, businesses, United Way contributions, state bar foundations and state and local governments.
  • Many civil legal aid programs do not receive any federal funds and are completely reliant on private donations and state and local government funding.
  • Many programs now rely on funds provided through Interest on lawyer trust accounts (IOLTA). These accounts are funded through interest accrued on legal trust accounts, which consist of legal fees placed in escrow.
  • Even IOLTA funds are not safe from legal aid opponents, who have argued that the accounts are not voluntary, opt-in programs for legal clients. They have used this argument as the basis of legal challenges to IOLTA. If these challenges are successful, millions of dollars in funding will be taken away from legal aid programs across the country.

[edit] Client group

  • Clients of civil legal aid represent the diversity that is America — encompassing all races, ethnic groups and ages, ranging from veterans and family farmers to the urban low-wage workers and victims of natural disasters.
  • Civil legal aid attorneys handle millions of cases each year, helping the more than 40 million people in this country living at or below the poverty level. Federal funds are used in approximately 1.5 million of these cases.
  • More than two-thirds of civil legal aid clients are women, and most of them are mothers. Because of this, the legal problems of people living in poverty can have serious implications for children.
  • In 1996, civil legal aid programs across the country handled more than 50,000 cases in which the primary issue was protection from domestic abuse and violence.

[edit] Need

  • Despite relatively prosperous times, more than 35 million Americans are still living below the poverty level, and another 10 million have incomes that are less than 25 percent higher than that level. As a result, roughly one in five U.S. citizens is eligible for federally funded legal services.
  • The need for legal services among the poor is overwhelming. According to a 1994 study conducted by the American Bar Association, at least 40 percent of low- and moderate-income households experience a legal problem each year.
  • Most low- and moderate-income people feel shut out from the legal system. They do not turn to the courts for solutions because they believe the system will not help them.
  • Civil legal aid ensures justice for all Americans, regardless of their income. Many people would otherwise not be able to afford access to the courts to resolve their legal troubles.
  • The American Bar Association has estimated that despite serving 1.9 million clients in 1997, the collective civil legal aid effort is meeting only about 20 percent of the legal needs of low-income people.

Fact Sheet on the Legal Services Corporation

What is the Legal Services Corporation?

LSC is the single largest funder of civil legal aid for low-income Americans in the nation. Established in 1974, LSC operates as an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that promotes equal access to justice and provides grants for high-quality civil legal assistance to low-income Americans. LSC distributes more than 90 percent of its total funding to 134 independent nonprofit legal aid programs with more than 800 offices.
LSC promotes equal access to justice by awarding grants to legal services providers through a competitive grants process; conducting compliance reviews and program visits to oversee program quality and compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements as well as restrictions that accompany LSC funding, and by providing training and technical assistance to programs. LSC encourages programs to leverage limited resources by partnering and collaborating with other funders of civil legal aid, including state and local governments, Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA), access to justice commissions, the private bar, philanthropic foundations, and the business community.
The Corporation is headed by a bipartisan board of directors whose 11 members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Who is helped by LSC-funded programs?

LSC-funded programs help people who live in households with annual incomes at or below 125% of the federal poverty guidelines – in 2012, $13,963 for an individual, $28,813 for a family of four. Clients come from every ethnic group and every age group and live in rural, suburban, and urban areas. They are the working poor, veterans, homeowners and renters, families with children, farmers, people with disabilities, and the elderly. Women—many of whom are struggling to keep their children safe and their families together—comprise 70 percent of clients.

What kinds of legal issues do low-income people need help with?

Legal assistance is necessary to address many issues that affect low-income individuals and families. The most frequent cases involve:
  • Family law: LSC grantees help victims of domestic violence by obtaining protective and restraining orders, help parents obtain and keep custody of their children, assist family members in obtaining guardianship for children without parents, and other family law matters. More than a third of all cases closed by local LSC programs are family law cases.
  • Housing and Foreclosure Cases: As the second largest category of all cases closed, these matters involve helping to resolve landlord-tenant disputes, helping homeowners prevent foreclosures or renegotiate their loans, assisting renters with eviction notices whose landlords are being foreclosed on, and helping people maintain federal housing subsidies when appropriate.
  • Consumer Issues: Nearly twelve percent of cases involve protecting the elderly and other vulnerable groups from being victimized by unscrupulous lenders, helping people file for bankruptcy when appropriate and helping people manage their debts.
  • Income Maintenance: More than 12 percent of cases involve helping working Americans obtain promised compensation from private employers, helping people obtain and retain government benefits such as disability benefits to which they are entitled.
  • Helping Military Families:—the first website in the nation to focus exclusively on federal legal rights and legal resources important to veterans – is funded by an LSC Technology Initiatives Grant. This free service enables military families and veterans to access a wide array of legal information and assistance. The Department of Veterans Affairs, in a directive, encourages use of the website in connection with service to homeless veterans.
  • Responding to Disasters: LSC has a long history with helping victims of natural disasters. LSC has built a national network of experience and expertise—including legal services providers and national organizations such as the American Red Cross and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—to help programs better serve victims when disasters strike.

How is assistance provided?

Legal aid programs provide extensive representation in individual cases when required, but they also provide:
  • Clinics, often staffed by pro bono attorneys, where legal problems can be identified and addressed on-site or scheduled for additional assistance if needed;
  • Advice and self-help materials (delivered via workshops, telephone help lines, online chat tools, downloadable court forms, etc.) that help people understand their rights and responsibilities, when legal assistance may be needed and where to find it, and get assistance with self-representation when necessary; and
  • Referrals to other social services as appropriate.

How many are helped?

LSC-funded programs helped approximately 2.3 million people in 2011. However, demand for legal aid far outstrips the resources available. This is known as the “justice gap.” Recent studies indicate that legal aid offices turn away 50 percent or more of those seeking help. The size of the population eligible for legal assistance has increased dramatically from 2007. The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 statistics on poverty show that nearly one in five—60 million Americans—qualified for civil legal assistance funded by LSC.

LAF (Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago)
Program Phone: (312) 341-1070
Legal Assistance: (312) 341-1070

They are so overwhelmed by numbers that you should call between 8-10 am to have a chance to get a call back – so many people call that they fail to return 80 % or more of the calls.

Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc.
Program Phone: (618) 398-0574
Legal Assistance: (618) 462-0036

Prairie State Legal Services, Inc.
Program Phone: (815) 965-2134
Legal Assistance: (815) 965-2134


The following 47 pages are in this category, out of 47 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).





C cont.








N cont.







The following 33 pages are in this category, out of 33 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).





D cont.













Yet another Motion to Dismiss filed for Lack of Jurisdiction filed

This time again  in Rockford.

First there was Wyman, now there is Spera.  Thank you Dominic for coming forward finally and contacting me about your case.

Dominic Spera’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Summons and Complaint)

And, as always, if you are in a probate case where you are questioning jurisdiction, use the forms on this website and do not hesitate to contact a lawyer to make sure the proper notices were served in a timely fashion (14 days prior to any notice on a hearing on guardianship, all adult children, parents and siblings must be informed of the time, date and place of hearing)

And while Nero fiddles–Rome is burning

Dear readers,

As you are all aware, for some reason my opposing counsel at the ARDC that have filed a complaint against me merely for BLOGGING, of all things, then motioned to have my attorney disqualified (bogus), seem to think it is perfectly okay for the ARDC to hound, harass, persecute and parriahcize me.

I think the only thing going on is I am just one more poster child for corruption among the courts, attorneys and judges in the US.

We have already learned that the Judicial Inquiry Board has not filed a single recommendation to discipline a judge in Cook County for YEARS due to infighting, and we KNOW there are plenty of judges acting badly in court — and nothing is done.

I am hearing reports that judges ban laptops, cell phones–even pen and paper–for note taking–and all in our courts which are supposed to the public and free and the banner of a free country and free speech.  A civil rights suit against all of this is in planning.

But who is carrying the banner for nationwide elimination of corruption?  Bill Windsor and he is making substantial progress.  Contact him thru his website if you want to make your particular record of injustice and corruption.

Lawless America goes nationwide after corruption in our nations courts

So while the ARDC is disciplining me for saying there is corruption, this completely ignores the fact that Google reports that corruption with the courts, judges and attorneys is  rampant all over the internet, with thousands and thousands of stories and articles abound on the internet regarding attorneys, courts and judges acting badly.

Go write Attys Jerome Larkin, Atty Haskel and Atty (sp?) Ozysprey and let them know it is wrong on so many levels to go after me and atty Ditkowsky while Rome is burning.  1)  I have the right under decades, if not 150 years of SCOTUS case law to speak my mind about corruption and the Illinois court system 2) they waste taxpayer money going after us instead of the miscreants–the judges and attorneys working without jurisdiction and 3) by telling me and atty Ditkowsky to shut up, they foster more injustice and corruption in the court system.

Please write the Administrator Jerome Larkin, Atty Haspel and Atty Opryszek and tell them that Ken and I have constitutional rights, we must be allowed to root out corruption in the court.

Honestly, I have no idea how to practice there when all this is going on.  What do I tell clients?  How can I practice in state court with all this going on?  The ARDC has not explained that to any honest and ethical attorney out there.  When I first entered practice and took my oath, the ARDC never sent me a disclaimer, “be careful what you wish for–the Illinois State Courts are full of corruption.  Good luck in finding any justice there except on rare occasions.”

Well, I guess I’m publishing the disclaimer for them and they don’t like it.

Of course, thousands of other sites and just ask Bill Windsor from “Lawless America” if he finds the courts to be a slice of StonyBrook Farms.

Please support those who speak out against injustice in the court systems.  Donate to and be a part of that cause.

The work I am doing now is extremely, extremely difficult and it leads to bar complaints when I just do my job–protecting the elderly and infirm–those that do not have a voice and cannot speak for themselves.

Cook County Court systems–is this a move toward “secret proceedings” and a police state?

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 14, 2013 9:27 AM
To: matt senator kirk
Cc: Chicago Tribune , SUNTIMES , NASGA , probate sharks , Cook Sheriff , states attorney, probate blogs
Subject: Fw: Court watchers

In examining the e-mails that were recently  sent to me, I noted this one and its attachments is most interesting.    It fits very nicely into the category of the Son of Greylord.     With Sykes, Gore, Tyler, Wyman as horrible examples of the plight of seniors and those individuals who fall into the clutches of some of the “judicial officials” who populate our Court system we appear to be affected by terminal cancer.  [Most of the Judicial officials are good, decent, hardworking and caring individuals who take their positions seriously – however, a bunch of well connected miscreants have developed a ‘cottage industry’ that threatens our democracy]
 That said, the documents attached allege that our ‘open Courtrooms’ and transparent (and open) legal proceedings are being less so.    Viewing the attachments in the light of the Sykes case, and the Denison case if no action is taken we should order the funeral arrangements for the real victim – our Democracy!.      It may be beating a dead horse, but the Denison case is particularly troubling as it is impossible that the ARDC is not aware of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and that no matter what JoAnne puts in her blog regarding corruption and unfairness in the court system they cannot stop her publishing it.   47 USCA 230 reiterates that Constitutional prohibition and the Supreme Court cases are legend – however, *****
Jumping forward we now have a new situation – proceedings in which ordinary people are not allowed to take notes so that they can record accurately what they saw and heard.    We are getting very close to having ‘secret proceedings.’     I have sent you a copy of these documents as ‘we the ordinary citizens’ who are constituents of Senator Mark Kirk are concerned over what appears a runaway express train reasonably calculated to bring Soviet, Taliban, North Korean, Iranian justice to the United States.
In all candor – can you believe that the Sykes case is not a figment of someone deranged mind?    can you believe the ARDC complaint brought against me?    Can you believe the ARDC complaint brought against JoAnne?     Can you believe that in the United States of America a spectator in a Courtroom can be barred from taking notes or a lawyer observing a case and not disrupting anyone told to close her computer?     In the face of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution this is indeed happening?
While in many parts of the world individual liberties are not important to the government, but in America each individuals personal liberties are extremely important.   Or maybe from the responses that government has been making in relation to the anguish of seniors and her families being victimized by certain ‘judicial officials’ who the ARDC refuses to investigate (and repeated acts in derogation of 755 ILCS 5/11a -1 et seq and the Bill of Rights ) maybe our current government has adopted the Taliban credo.
On bended knee I am begging Senator Kirk and our elected representatives to demand that law enforcement do an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of these very serious allegations.   I personally would appreciate law enforcement finding out how any person can obtain a license to practice law in the State of Illinois and suggest that is unethical act for a lawyer writing or otherwise publishing a demand for his/her elected representative to investigate allegations that a 90 year old (plus) senior citizen was actively deprived of her civil rights.    When the State of Illinois and the United STates of America are in fiscal crisis I would also appreciate knowing how investigations are justified of the complaining parties and not the alleged miscreants.
Ken Ditkowsky

What do you do if you realize your case is pathetic? Inspirational Fash! Go after the attorney on the other side!

One of the things I have learned in the sleazy world of probate (and please, don’t write up another stupid paragraph about me saying it’s sleazy–just google sleazy probate and see what you get–dozens and dozens of websites–about 2 mil results in .2 secs!–and they’re not all mine, but they do seem to emanate from around the US.) is if you are being attacked by someone honest and with a good point–go for the attack on the tangent.

That is, if you don’t have the law, then pound the facts, if you don’t have the facts or law, then just pound the table.

A tried and true tactic of sleazy lawyers.

I have had cases when there was no jurisdiction, and I had to tell the client and the court we need to dismiss and nonsuit–as an officer of the court.  I don’t want to bring liabiity on the state or the court and the judges and others that depend upon me to be honest

But what do I find in Illinois probate?  Exactly the opposite.  Judges and GAL’s that desperately and vehemently and even obnoxiously cling to jurisdiction that just isn’t there.

Let me say it again, Tyler, Sykes, Gore, Bedin, Spera and others.

These should have never, never happened.  Attys and judges acting badly.

So, if you’ve decided to act badly, file bogus complaints against honest attoneys, what then do you do?  Perhaps the authorities are noticing.  The pubic is noticing and writing angry letters and they are mightily unhappy.

So how do you go about pounding the table and create a tear gas distraction, not just the red herring, but more of a pink and purple herring?

Go for the motion to Disqualify the person’s attorney!  Yah! that will do it.  Say the attorney will be a witness, there is a conflict, whatever it takes.  Go for the down low and dirty.

see the following

Motion to Disqualify Atty Ken Ditkowsky with Response

You know, I see these a lot in Federal Court where the litigants have a lot of money to burn in litigation but the movant knows the motion is a loser.  I see them once in a while in state court, and in the law division, they’re a total loser.  But in probate from a litigant and not a GAL?   Just another rubber stamp for the day

Remember, see my prior post on how in probate –justice only comes from a List the judge keeps on her desk.  it is not contained in briefs or case law or stare decisis which is a ton of work to read all those (boring) cases.

I have no idea how the ARDC can promulgate this stuff for 83,000 lawyers at an annual fee of $450, but it’s a total waste.  JMHO.


Keep on writing the ARDC for justice and allow lawyers to blog against corruption in the courts.  Write the Director, Atty Jerome Larkin or fax him at 312-565-2320. One prudential Plaza, 130 E Randolph Dr, #1500, Chicago, IL 60601.


Let’s keep this country what the founding fathers and mothers wanted (well, at least the fathers, the mothers wanted equal rights and the  vote and that took another 150 years or so).


Response to ARDC–don’t let them sleep, don’t let them rest until Mary Sykes and Carol Wyman are back in their own homes!

Mary Sykes wants to go home and live in her own home.  So does Carol Wyman.  But the State of Illinois sponsors the senior relocation program to another place and sells the home they have loved and wanted to live in until they die–all under a program called “guardianship without jurisdiction.”

The ARDC looks the other way, a source tells me the JIB (Judicial Inquiry Board) is worthless and hopeless.

So what do Ken and I do?  We rally!  That’s right, when the going gets tough, the tough get going.

Read on and enjoy.

February 12,2013
Ms. Myrra B. Guzman
Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Conunission
130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60601-6219
Re: Honest, Complete, and Comprehensive Investigation
Dear Ms. Guzman;
Thank for your letter of February 11,2013.
5940 W. Touhy, Suite 230
Niles, IL 60714
(847) 600-3421 Telephone
(847) 600-3425 Fax
The content of the letter surprises me as quite obviously at this point in time the ARDC knows that for the past 3+ years a senior citizen has been denied her liberty, property, civil and human rights by proceedings that were in direct violation of the law. As a ‘senior attorney’ for the ARDC, you, Ms. Black and the Administrator were all aware ofthe Illinois Supreme Court statement;
“The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and sununons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (11 1. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 11O~, par. 11 a-lO( e); see McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill. Rev . Stat. 1989 , ch. 110, par. 11 a-I O(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988),172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.” In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13,630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994).
I trust that at this point in time the Administrator has examined the Court file in Sykes and discovered that Ms. Gloria Sykes and her two aunts (all of whom were entitled to 14-days notice) never received the notices and in fact they were not included in the petition to which in fact severed Mary Sykes from her liberty and property interests. It
therefore follows that the actions and conduct of Ms. Cynthia Farenga, Mr. Adam Stern, Mr. Peter Schmiedel and a host of other lawyers is not only questionable but might be criminal.
I note the ARDC is quick, without a scintilla of evidence to aver that the messenger is lying; however, when the transcript of Ms. Farenga’s testimony is written and exposed to clear light of daylight it will be again revealed that she testified that she was not present when Carolyn Toerpe had Ms. Sykes’ safety deposit drilled and the substantial number of gold coins disappeared or at least were not inventoried. (see Ms. Gloria Sykes’ affidavit). Thus, as Ms. Gloria Sykes (who was an owner ofthe safety deposit box) and her aunt both have
pointed out the size and the contents of the container containing the coins that was removed (and not inventoried) and Ms. Farenga (but not Ms. Toerpe) has been denying the existence ofthe collectibles is it not the duty of the ARDC to do an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of 1) why Ms. Farenga is denying a fact that she has admitted to knowledge concerning, and 2) how attorneys have not investigated the
disappearance of property belonging to a person who has without jurisdiction been deprived of her liberty and property?
• Page 2 February 12,2013
It is rather suspicious that the only disciplinary proceedings that are taking place are those involving the messengers, It is suspicious that ‘judicial officials’ who continue to act for 3+ years in derogation of the clear statement of the Supreme Court of Illinois (cited supra) are given immunity while the rights of both Ms. Denison and myself have been trampled. It is suspicious that the clear prohibition on attempts to silence ‘content’ based speech are ignored by the ARDC in invor of filing groundless disciplinary complaints against
the messengers who are duty bound by Himmel to report the conduct of Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel et al.
Very Truly Yours
Kenneth Ditkowsky
Cc: clients

Ken we need to send cc’s to the FBI.  I think you are right the FBI had all those documents but kindly returned them when Gloria’s appeal was due.  Where else could they have gone?

Letters to the Judicial Inquiry Board–do they really do any good?

From an anonymous source:

“The JIB has only 2 investigators for the whole State.  The problem is that they are over-worked.  They pump out reports without any opinions.  The reports go to the Board who make recommendations to the Commission.  Here is where serious infighting is occurring.  The Commission has been refusing to accept recommendations from the Board for punishment of judges.  The Board is now refusing to make recommendations because they look stupid with all their recommendations being turned down.  So now we have no recommendations for punishment.  All rumors.”

So, until the public puts pressure on “the commission” to do it’s job, it looks like the letters are just “rumors” until someone gets in there and kicks butt and stops the infighting.


My suggestion is to write to Senators Kirk and Durbin and let them know the Judicial Inquiry Board is woefully inadequate, has done nothing in the Sykes, Gore, etc. cases.

GJS and her brilliant day in Court

February 11, 20013

Judge Stuart – JS

Chase attorney is here.  No one from Fannie Mae. GJS is complaining that the Chase atty won’t give her a business card or say who he is.

Carolyn’s here.

All the appellate volumes.

Michael Blattner, commissioner they appointed.

Official court reporter present.

GJS tells me the last time she was in court, she overheard CT and company said they were going drill out the locks again and get into the house.  Horrors, more criminal activities.

GJS shows me letter that her mom was never served.

Stuart chained GJS to a chair in the back room for about a half hour, threatened her to euthanize her pets–a beloved dog named “Shaggy” and a cute long haired kitty named “Kitty.”  Okay, GJS isn’t very creative with pet names.

During GJS’s last hearing in court, Judge Murray let GJS put on atty Gene Moskowitz and he said that mom didn’t file anything in the Lumberman’s case.

GJS relates that Chase has admitted they owe her damages for drilling out locks on her property and creating severe damage to her home.  Chase was supposed to negotiate a settlement in the last BK.  GJS just filed a new BK case 14 days ago.

GJS is working.

Adversary proceedings need to be reopened in bankruptcy.

Richard Bussee is still representing GJS in the BK.

All of PS and his firm, CT, the Chase atty, Michael Blattner, etc. all walk in and within two minutes the judge walks out.   GJS says this happens all the time.  It used to be the GAL’s would walk from the judge’s door, then the judge, but since I published on this blog that is unethical and improper, now they are about 10% less blatant about “getting prepared” with the judge.  Now only she walks thru that door, but it’s all a coincidence, still.

attorneys step up

GJS objects to jurisdiction.

Sykes is not represented by counsel.  PS, CT, AS present CF has another family emergency.

GJS an interested party.

Court lacks jurisdiction.

GJS says that she also had a family emergency like CT but she came to court regardless.

Michael Blattner also present for subdivion of property.

Chase is the mortggee.

GJS says fannie mae is not here and they now they own the note.

PS says they have not been served (with GJS’s new action).  GJS has refiled the chapter 13 in January.

This interferes with the ability to subdivide her property.

At this point I am asked by Judge Stuart to shut off my laptop so I just start taking notes on the back of some court orders.  Waste of paper and time if you ask me, but if you like pet dinosaurs, you probably like taking notes on paper.  Personally, I don’t.  I told her that I could type 100 wpm and I prefer to type my notes.  This very polite request was ignored by the court.  I wonder if we need a federal law that litigants can take notes in any state, federal or hearing tribunal.  I don’t understand how this simple request is such a problem for the court. I’m not playing games, I’m not texting anyone.  I am admitted to the bar and helping a friend and the pubic rooting out corruption in the courts, and if you ask me, this case is a hot bed of questions on corruption, aberrations from the rules and law, GAL’s that do strange things and are on the case forever.

You name it, this case has got it, but I digress.

PS says they need time to check on the status of the mortgage with chase.

JS asks how long that will will take.

GJS says that there is a bankruptcy she has newly filed.

Then they start looking for dates.

April 4, 2013 is the next date they can agree upon.

GJS suggests April Fool’s day as being more appropriate.  I give her the tumb’s up.

JS – says this will be only a status date.
Date selected, everyone stands down.

GJS’s filing are uploaded here:

Pleading 1 filed today (regarding partition)

Pleading 2 filed today (regarding objection to inventory)

I want to thank her for sharing her motions with everyone. They contain important case law and information if you are ever in probate.  They are for the most part, well drafted and contain important assertions on behalf of the non Carolyn Toerpe portion of the Sykes family, which is pretty much the rest of the family.  I have no idea why the ARDC does not allow the sisters of Mary and the other daughter of Mary to speak out via me on the web.  I can’t represent GJS, I was disqualified, but I can be her news reporter and I can go to court and take notes and I can be her blogger, just as you all can.

The ARDC is trying to make blogs “sinister” and disrespectful.  They are trying to discredit WordPress and Blogger and/or tell people what they can and cannot post.  In a repressive, fascist society, the first thing a dictator does is go after the lawyers telling the truth.  That’s what the Gestapo did in Germany in the 1930’s.  Take a look at this.  Who, other than the ARDC cares about a blog?  A blog, for chrissakes.  It’s insane.

I have tried and tried, but I can find no other case law about a lawyer getting disciplined for running a blog.  Lawyers get disciplined for stealing money, forgetting a client matter, not appearing in court, not writing a brief on time, etc.–but a blog?

Again, I have read hundreds of notes over the years on attorneys that have stolen money–most of it in very large amounts and mostly real estate attys– and they get disbarred or suspended.  Then there are the lawyers that forget to come to court, forget to write briefs, forget to email clients.  Now, if you are one of my clients or opponents, you know I am a maniac about text and email and will hound you until you get something done.  It’s the “mom” nature in me.  Anyway the lawyers that don’t steal anything generally get “censured”.

What about the lawyers that write a blog on corruption?  What about the lawyers who speak up for the likes of Tyler, Wyman, Gore, Bedin, Spera, etc.?

PS–in the ARDC complaint for BLOGGING filed against me on Jan 8, 2013 (of all things, come on now, blogging?  How desperate is that).

In the meanest, most aggressive tone I suppose you can gather for a complaint on BLOGGING on corruption, the ARDC says (you won’t believe how horrifying this is) I use initials!  That’s right, initials.  The sinister, ARDC mystifying use of intitals.

Well, it’s really I’m typing lazy and then I LOVE LONG FINGERNAILS.  Okay, I said it.  I get really pretty long fingernails which makes my typing just a tad more difficult and initials a bit easier on my qwerty keyboard, and so I use initials.

Okay, this is a BLOG.   For those of you ARDC attys that are too old or too ensconced in your Ivory White Towers of the Prudential Towers and removed from the hoi poli an the unwashed masses that I routinely gather with on the 18th floor and even the 14th floor of FED, horrors of horrors, a blog is supposed to be the immediate impressions, thoughts and stream of conscience that we are supposed to experience via our fingertips.

To show that where the ARDC is located consists of two “ivory towers” see the picture on wikipedia:

I have never seen the likes of Ms. Leah Black or any ARDC atty there.  Just the litigants.


Exactly what are the words of the laws that entitle us to free speech that the ARDC should be aware of

Courtesy of Atty Ken Ditkowsky and his wonderful wife Judy who also “gets it”.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Constitution of the State of Illinois



    All men are by nature free and independent and have
certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights
and the protection of property, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

    All persons may speak, write and publish freely, being
responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In trials for
libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, when published
with good motives and for justifiable ends, shall be a
sufficient defense.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Dear "non believer in free speech"

The question is not what YOU believe a delegated agency of the Illinois Supreme Court is empowered to do.

This country and this state have Constitutions which DEFINE what the rights of people are and what the government through its agencies can and cannot do.

There have been U.S. and Illinois Supreme Court cases which enlarge specifically on what the rights governmental agencies have 
under the Constitution: an agency of the government DOES NOT HAVE POWERS that the government does not have.

When something has become part of the GOVERNMENT RECORD, through
 some court procedure, be it deposition, trial, affidavit, it is subject to public comment.
Judy Ditkowsky
Ken Ditkowsky

Will this hope on the Horizon spread to Probate in Illinois?

From New Jersey:

February 5, 2013

Last week, New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Announced that teams of volunteer watchdogs  will monitor the legal guardians for tens of thousands disabled and elderly people. They’ll be on the lookout for theft or abuse of power.

The Volunteer Guardianship Monitoring Program will train people to scan the annual expense reports all legal guardians are required to file with the county and look for any “red flags” that suggest possible mismanagement, as The Star-Ledger’s Susan Livio reported last week.

GJS sent this article and thank you very much!

It would be nice to have courtwatchers in Illinois that CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

Perhaps we need to organize the ones we already have in our courtrooms (we can identify them by the closed laptops) and let’s get some action going with Presiding Judge Timothy Evans.

We need courtwatchers to go through the probate files making sure that there was a summons and complaint upon the respondent 14 days in advance of the hearing, that all close relatives–adult siblings, children and parents–were notified 14 days in advance of any guardianship.

The files should have annual reports on the ward indicating she or he is well and happy, that the finances do not look suspicious or missing.

Great idea and thanks

Can the First Amendment be beaten to death with the powers-that-be

From: JoAnne M Denison <>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <>
Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: what is so difficult understanding the First Amendment.

excellent!  okay to publish?  I guess you and I have to just keep on reading cases and publishing them until L****** and the ARDC gets it.

She’s kind of funny. She obviously follows my blog, but is highly critical of it–generally I think for just being a bit outrageous with my phraseolgy from time to time, but then again, I am nothing compared to the 1000 stations of trash we have on our home Dishnetwork satellite dish.  She isn’t going to like you using F and stars, that’s for sure.  But I grew up with 4 brothers, I have 3 sons and there’s something about swearing and fighting that goes with testosterone.  I throw them all outside for it.

North Korea bans cell phones.  Saudi Arabia does not let women drive and they cannot travel without a male relative, they cannot vote.  Women lawyers in Iran fighting for democracy and women’s rights are having their parental rights terminated and children taken away by the state.

In 1932, the German government kicked out all the Jewish lawyers from the city courts.

But the ARDC is worried about my blog  I have looked at the results of hundreds of ARDC disciplinary actions over the years.  Yours and mine are only for free speech and a blog–the only ones.

Mary had a right to your investigating her case.  Connors never had jurisdiction over you.  Then you spoke out.  Where was the misconduct?  Justice must not come from “a list”.

If disciplining me for a blog is sooo important to the ARDC then why aren’t there other decisions they can cite (perhaps you need to send them an interrogatory on this), for writing a blog, for publishing a book, for writing a movie, a screen play–what lawyer gets disciplined for that?  None, those are the lawyers.  None A and None B.
But talk honestly about what you hear and see in and around Probate, the ARDC gets its undies in a bunch, wets them and spits out a first amendment violating complaint against the messenger and not the miscreant.

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 9, 2013 10:36 AM
To: JoAnne Denison
Subject: what is so difficult understanding the First Amendment.

The discourse that we all have been having is interesting as we all have the very same interest, i.e. protecting the senior citizen from being the victim of ‘judicial officials’ who based upon avarice have or are attempting to deprive a senior of his/her liberty and property rights.
The current discussion involves whether lawyers can be muzzled by the State ARDC and be punished for speaking out.   As the subject has never been addressed head on by the United States Supreme Court an analogy seems appropriate:
The best analogy is the public university setting.   Can a university student on his blog use an obscene word to describe university action as an example.  Papish 410 US 667 involved the University publication (written) that came out with the word MF in its headline.   The Supreme Court following its prohibition of ‘content’ based censorship ruled the University censorship violated the First Amendment.
The cases are well established that the attempt to regulate speech is a ‘no – no’  This includes:
Keywbian 354 US 234  refusual to discuss content of course
Swezzy 354 US 234 Attempt to prevent teachers from expressing non-mainstream views
Healy v James 408 uS 169 –  baring group because of reputation for violence
these are older cases, but with Alvarez recently decided it is clear that government cannot regulate directly or indirectly what we think, what we say, or how we express it.    *&^*()() F***ing x, y, and z cannot do a F ***ing thing about the fact that I think it is corrupt that there are judges outthere administrating laws that they should have read and have not.  As long as the words are content based the ARDC has absolutely no right to make the determination that my words interfere with the administration of justice or reflect badly on the justice system.
Indeed, I have the right to speak out whenever and where-ever I want and point out that it is F***ing corrupt for the ARDC to use public funds to attempt to deny a lawyer of his/her First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.   I also have the right not to use impolite phrases in English Spanish or any other language I desire.    Content based censorship is illegal  – the use of any government funds to aid and abet such action is a misuse of public funds and in my opinion may (and should be) subject to criminal penalties.
Let me make this very clear – you and I have an absolute right to disagree loudly and openly.   No one has a right to deny the First Amendment Right to our content based speech.
Now let us go one step further as we beat this subject to death.    University conduct codes one after another have been struck down by the lower Courts.   The Supreme Court has not had to express and opinion on the subject.   Of course, as the latest exchange of e-mails has developed it is a good thing I never chose to be a teacher – I cannot make the point to choir.   Fortunately, except for the miscreants most lawyers feel and obligation to stare decisis and follow the law. 
Ken Ditkowsky

The HUGE size of the First Amendmemt, How infinite is it?

For those of you not familiar with the concept of infinity in math, let me give you a view:

infinityOkay, maybe that’s a bit fanciful, but you get the point.

In any case, Ken is feeling a bit down today, after trying to explain the First Amendment over and over to everyone assuring people we do have this right and government is not going to come into your computers and laptops anytime soon, analyze what you have written today and send you to prison.

No, Virginia, that’s what they do in North Korea and Saudi
Arabia, you silly.  We have the constitution here.  Don’t you recall 6th grade history?

My proposition is that the First Amendment is infinite to the point of blatantly lying.  Making stuff up.  Putting your imagination on paper and swearing it’s true.

I assure you all, I have never, never done that.  In fact, under the infinity of the
First Amendment, it’s up to the ARDC to prove everything I said on this blog was utterly false.

For those of you that do not understand this concept, please read the book “The Bretheren”.  It is about SCOTUS a few decades back.  The interesting part of the book is where it talks about how the Justices used to get involved with every X rated movie or suspected X rated movie and like “goin’ to the show with a regular guy”, they actually sat down on Sunday afternoons and watched all US porn and rated it and then gave it the “obscene” mark or “not obscene” judgment.  Kind of silly, right?  But, hey, maybe it was good for Mrs. Justice at about 6 pm on Sunday, so who knows.  That part wasn’t in the book and I can only imagine.

So, eventually, the US Supremes decided even that was silly (maybe they stopped putting real butter on the popcorn and went to margarine, who knows), and they just decided individual communities could have “community obscenity standards” and they let that all go.

So see the exchange below between myself and Ken, and DON’T PUT IT PAST ME,  a few of you write and I will skillfully execute and post an original artwork making fun of me in men’s whitie tighties, a cigar and whatever other silliness you want, aka “mirth and girth”.

Let’s see if LB and Jerome Larkin rise to that task! (I bet they don’t and I tell you right now the only word for that is pompous a***).

Dear Ken;

You can paint me in men’s underwear whitie tighties smoking a cigar with pasties on ANYTIME.  I will even post it on my blog.

It is someone else’s first amendment right to make fun of me and I don’t care.

You’re right.  Why don’t people understand the first amendment and what our founding fathers and mothers (okay it took them 200 years to get the right to vote and equal rights and maybe CEDAW soon), but in 1776 a daring bunch of educated persons knew it and put it into the constitution.

The ARDC fully well knows what it is doing is wrong. They have no right to regulate my blog for the fairly mundane statements (compare to cable TV) on my blog.

They don’t go after cable TV, and there’s no reason to go after my blog.  Period.

What right do they have?  Go after cable TV, dish network, Hustler, Playboy,
Skin-a-Max, Maury, Sallie Jessie, any daytime TV, etc.  Then when you get done with all that–go after my blog.

Does that make the point any easier to understand?

Who am I compared to all that trash.


—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 8, 2013 9:00 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison , j ditkowsky , Michigan Advocacy Project , Janet Phelan , “” , NASGA , probate sharks
Subject: Re: Permission to publish

I understand that completely – however I have two problems  1) Apparently I have not been able to make my point with anyone.   that point is  – the ‘core’ of our democracy is the First Amendment.   This document applies to everyone, and if anyone is denied his her rights we all lose.   The first amendment applies to not only what we like, but what we do not like.   I was not thrilled to see an artist depict Mayor Washington in women’s underwear – however, I unlike a bunch of alderman did not try to interfere with the artist’s free speech.  I defended the right.
2) the second problem is political.   The energy that is wasted being pawns to the miscreants would better be spent in writing to law enforcement demanding an honest investigation into how in America senior citizens can be subjected = while everyone watches – to depriviation of liberty, property, civil rights and human rights by ‘judicial officials’ who have sworn to protect those rights.

More importantly is how hypocritical we are if we allow ourselves for personal reasons to be pawns in the effort to deny senior citizens who are targeted by the ‘judicial officials’ to be deprived of their liberty, property, civil rights and human rights.

The mission is very simple even though I have been unable to express it to even my friends – like RP, MLK, HB, TM, AWH, FF we are called upon to defend the First, Fifth and Fourteenth amendment rights of all including attorneys who have offended the likes of CF, AS, MS, LB, PS, et al.   (Note – I used initials!   Is that unethical?   The Denison complaint appears to suggest it is.   GW, AH, TJ, JA appear to disagree but as the founding fathers are all dead they will not respond at this time to a subpoena.

Ken Ditkowsky



And the copyright infringement by the ARDC continues…..

I don’t get it.  After telling the ARDC you cannot publish someone’s proprietary writings because only the author has the 5 copyright rights:  right to copy, right to publicly display, right to perform (also called a grand right), the right to make derivative works and the right to publish/disseminate.

It has been nearly 5 days since they wrongfully published my proprietary rights and I am not happy about that.  It’s clearly wilful infringement.  Apparently they have not responded to myself or Ken, they have not taken down the infringing work.  No letter, no anything.

I am counting the days.

I have the right to decide when and where my writings are published.  So does Ken and neither of us gave the ARDC any permission to do this.

I don’t understand how hard it  is to take down that webpage and or replace the proprietary writings with “COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL OMITTED”–as all the case law does.

I have written about this several times now, I have explained it on this blog, so I don’t understand what the big deal is.

I would like an explanation, wouldn’t you?  If I did that to the ARDC attys–published their proprietary writings, they would be all over me and for just cause.

It’s been 5 days now, and I would think they would take all this much more seriously.

I run blogs, I have a website and I don’t steal other people’s stuff and put it there as I please.  I ask permission first.  That’s called a license.  The ARDC has no license, just so you know.

And I believe my writings are covered by the First Amendment regardless.  I am engaging in the highest form of speech–public participation.  Illinois even has several laws to help protect free speech–the Whistleblower Act, the Citizens Participation Act, etc.–all ignored.

I did not make this stuff up. This is what I heard and what I was told and the stories are genuine and harrowing.  Much of it is already on other blogs.  Everything pretty much I have related to you, my audience, is already on the internet, but I am confirming and reporting.

Lawyers, most of all, must report corruption, ask for investigations from the police department, and protect the seniors and disabled.

We simply cannot allow these most vulnerable people to lose their life, liberty, human and civil rights.


From Ken Ditkowsky, Esq. — letters to the Department of Justice, the ARDC and the major news outlets!

If you need to speak out, Ken’s direction is the way to do it.

Take a look at these letters, feel free to OCR them on  your G-Drive and resend for me, for you, for other probate court abuse victims:

KDD’s Letter to the ARDC to protest complaints for running a blog

KDD’s Letters to the WSJ, NYT, WashP, CBA, ISBA, CBA

Feel free to print out these letters, send them out with your name inserted on them, (Google, Wordperfect and Word will OCR them for you), or use the addresses for your own cause to fight corruption in probate court or in any Illinois Court where it may be found.

While the ARDC promulgates a complaint against me saying I bring “dishonor and disrespect” to the court and attorneys and some judges practicing there, I just don’t see how that is.  If you Google Cook County Circuit Court and corruption there are hundreds of horror stories on Goggle.

Why is it only the ARDC can’t do these searches before they file something?

There are a lot of Chicagoans royally pissed off at the Cook County Court system for perceived injustices and corruption–that is deviation from an ideal, norm or standard, in this case Illinois Probate law, but I guess the ARDC in its ivory tower never gets close to the hoi poli and unwashed masses trudging the halls of the 18th floor.


Please, ARDC attys, do yourself a favor.  google “cook county court and corruption” read the blogs, go down there yourselves and see the cases, see how some of the attys and judges are acting badly.

Put up an ad on craig’s list looking for these stories.

Stop putting your heads in the sand blaming everything on “misunderstandings” or “that really did not happen.” 


Cooper’s Corner tells the truth! With Bev Cooper

As many of you probably know, Bev Cooper and her husband had 6 kids and one of them was a challenge–mentally dysfunctional, sociopathic–all in all, a ton of trouble and in and out of the system.  If you gave her more than an hour or two with another person, it would end up in a fight and often a physical fight. Years of therapy, treatment, etc. never made a dent in anything.

Then Bev’s mother fell under a guardianship and Judge Kowamoto appointed Bev’s mentally ill daughter as guardian!  Imagine that.

So Bev started her own probate blog,, and she also had a local area cable show, Cooper’s corner.  She told her tale of horror in probate, first with her daughter and then with her mother.  She told other tales as well she has collected over the years.

The tale by her mother was fairly classic.  Daughter waits until grandma has a “confusion episode” then takes her to the bank and clears out safe deposit boxes unbeknownst to the family.  Daughter is appointed guardian, and the tale Bev relates is harrowing and I wish I could say I never heard of it, but I have heard of it numerous times.

Miriam Solo first tells the probate court that “Bev made mom cry”.  So she is either banned from seeing her mother in the hospital, or she must have $160 per hour supervision.  (This is despite the fact it never happened and Bev turned over a copy of the tape from the visit to the GAL and he just sat on it) Next step is, mom can’t come home and must live either in a nursing home or the hospital when Bev is ready, willing and able to take her home.  Home placements are preferred, so what’s up with that, MS?  Next, a DNR is slapped on mom, and she is intubated, forced to eat via a tube because she eats too slowly for the staff of a busy nursing home, but mom is still competent and wants to eat food.  Then they put up the order no food, no water and she is then starved to death.  That’s right, like a concentration camp prisoner.  Bev had the pictures.  Bev wanted to take mom home and feed her at mom’s leisure.  2 hours is nothing for a loving daughter to feed mom–I know.  Sometimes it takes hours to get the out of bed and get them to chemo and back.  But if you love someone, it’s truly not a burden.  But for a busy, profit oriented nursing home it is.

And no, this is NOT the first time I have heard this story.  It’s going on with the Rissman’s in Indiana, but they have out protestors daily in front of the hospital and they starting to give her dad drinks and soft puddings and soups again.  I hope he is safe.  You can google that story.

In the Cooper case, the fees were $1.5 million in 3 years, or $500,000 per year.

What I tell you is the TRUTH! Ken and are not making this stuff up calling for an investigation into these cases, making a noise for the elderly and infirm.  I don’t get paid for this.  I have to go and represent people with no money and no hope and no guaranteed outcome.

Where is the outrage?

The show turned out excellent and I hope to be back soon with more stories of Probate horrors.

Think twice before you go there.  Trust no one.  Check everyone out thoroughly.  Document and get records of everything as they occur.

If you’re lucky, you’ll be like me.  I was able to keep my mom at home for 4 years eating her favorite foods and taking her where she wanted.

Write, call and fax the ARDC at the address given on the page with my complaint.  Tell them you read it and it’s horsefeathers.

Attorneys have to speak out and up.  We have to stop corruption and bring it to light soon as we see or hear of it.

Everyone is invited to post or comment here, and all I turn away is spam.  I have had no adverse comments to this blog other than the ARDC.  113 positive supportive comments.

Ken and I thank you mightily.  And the families coming to court today knowing that they can complain to me when the GAL’s and judges start going the wrong way and so keep on the right path in open court thank you also.

Remember the Respondent in a petition for guardianship MUST receive a copy of the summons and complaint from a duly appointed process server or the sheriff 14 days in advance of the hearing.  All close relatives, defined as adult parents, siblings and children must be notified in writing of the time, date and place of the hearing 14 days in advance.

If this is not done, you should be able to get your case dismissed, provided your first writing in court is to object to jurisdiction.

good luck.